Buying my first new car was a lot like losing my virginity: it was unexpected, impulsive and quick. Even though it didn’t turn out exactly as I might have expected, I certainly don’t regret it; it was an inevitable rite of passage. There has to be a first time, for better or for worse. At least the glow of satisfaction lasted a bit longer (with the car).

Anyway, there I was, innocently tooling to work one morning in my 1980 Skylark company car, and as I rolled past the Ford dealer in Santa Monica, SHE winked at me: the first 1983 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe in town. She was young, taut and fresh, straight off the trailer. With her long sleek bod, she stood out from the crowded lot of boxy Fords like Keira Knightley at a Walmart checkout line. I knew instantly: we were meant for each other.

And what about the preliminaries? A few mental masturbation sessions after seeing the new TC on the cover and in the pages of Car and Driver. My innate attraction to efficiency, heightened by the very recent energy crisis II, had me pretty obsessed with the idea of diesels as well as small turbo-charged gasoline engines that could perform like a V8 and sip gas like a four. But diesels were too just too slow, noisy and stinky to inspire an act of act of passion. So turbo love blossomed in my heart.

GM had pioneered turbos in 1962, with the Monza Spyder and Olds Jetfire, but within a few years, turbo-fever flamed out. Porsche’s 1976 930 Turbo reignited them, and Ford jumped in too. Instead of a modern fuel-injected design, Ford’s 1979 Mustang Turbo 2.3 was a primitive affair, where the boost was force-fed into the carburetor. The results were primitive too, with a modest 132hp rating. And not exactly the best running engine around. Sad to say,that 132 hp it was still substantially more powerful than the pathetic 255 inch V8 with its 118hp rating. Dark times. And at least Ford didn’t back down after their first attempt.

The Turbo four was completely re-engineered for the new 1983 TC. Now it was world-class state of the art: port fuel injection, and Ford’s new and very advanced EEC-IV electronic engine management system. It’s fair to say that this engine was one of the first truly “modern” engines, certainly so out of Detroit.

Raising most hoods on new cars back then was like confronting the convoluted entrails of a freshly-slit pork belly. You were lucky to catch a glimpse of the engine under miles of contorted vacuum hoses. Popping the Bird’s long beak a visual treat: The little four-banger sat so exposed, almost naked, adorned with some nice alloy pieces. In 1983, this was hot stuff, the kind of thing that quickly drew car freaks to its open hood.

The 145hp output may seem pathetic today, but what was the alternative? Even BMW was on an economy binge; the only 5-Series available (528e) had all of 128hp, and the 3-Series barely harnessed 100 horses. Yes, the Mustang GT finally found its oats again, with 175 hp. But the high-tech, high-efficiency allure of the TC was very different than that of the hot-rod four-barrel Mustang.

So much for the preliminaries. Like most young men, I lusted after a new set of wheels. But I never really considered acting on it, until I abruptly pulled into the dealer that morning. So there I was, in the showroom, looking over this gun-metal gray metallic TC. I took her for a brief spin; where can one properly test a new performance car in the city in 15 minutes? But the brief surges of power when the turbo kicked in were intoxicating, even at 9:15 AM. Never mind the seductive fawn-colored leather buckets.

“I want this car now,” I told the groggy salesman. “I’ll write you a check for it. I need to get to work– in this car.” The veteran salesman eyed me with suspicious satisfaction, nursing his morning Java. “Want some coffee? How about some rubber mats and protective sealer?”

“No. Just tell me how much, so I can get out of here…Whoa; that much?” I don’t remember the exact number, but with sales tax and registration, I seem to remember the total being right around $16,000 ($36k adjusted). Well, it was loaded; typical for a brand new model.

But Maharishi owed me one. Since taking over his near-bankrupt LA TV station, I’d turned KSCI into a Tower of Babel− programming in no less than fifteen Asian and Middle-Eastern languages. And those changes quickly made it very profitable; I’d made the little man some serious money (wired to obscure off-shore accounts).

So I picked up the phone, called the station’s business manager and told him to bring the company check book. Ballsy move. But I was quickly learning how things worked in the TM organization (behind the scenes). About an hour later I arrived at work that morning, with a big grin on my face.

I soon discovered that the Turbo Coupe’s first-glance beauty was a bit inconstant. The interior was a real mixed bag. The multi-adjustable leather seats had inflatable lumbar support, with squeeze-bulbs sourced from a blood-pressure cuff. Very comfortable.

But the dashboard made it clear just how little money Ford had to work with back then. It was essentially unchanged from the previous generation T-Bird, that (mostly) unloved boxy thing. And I always loathed that Ford steering wheel, even if it was leather covered. It looked really out of place here. Both of these issues would be fixed in a couple of years, but too late for me.

As everyone know, the T-Bird shared Ford’s Fox rear wheel-drive platform with the Mustang. With the little four up there, the TC was anorexic (just under 3000lbs) yet solid. That was the real attraction: the kind of almost perfect weight distribution that was so hard to find in an American car. With its accurate rack and pinion steering and the optional big Michelin TRX wheels/tires, the TC was light on its feet, a real dancer. Yes, a V8 might have been nicer some of the time, but the TC’s balance and handling would have suffered. And riding her gently yielded a genuine thirty mpg.

But there was a price to pay: The moment you cranked it above 4200-4500 rpm, the mill’s Pinto roots screamed back. A nasty concoction of noise, vibration and harshness. The NVH acronym was invented for this engine. If only Ford had bestowed it a pair of balance shafts. And since the engine lacked palpable boost below 2000rpm; flooring her was an invitation to turbo-hole hell. The fun came in short, intense bursts; about a 2500 rpm band of goodness. Good thing the five-speed was slick-shifting. It got lots of use.

It wasn’t so bad with just me aboard. But loaded with a few passengers with the A/C on in city driving, the TC became an utter embarrassment. It felt completely gutless, until the boost came on; not exactly conducive to relaxed and comfortable driving. One trip picking up some celebrities from the airport really had me thinking V8 engine swap.

Once at speed, all was forgiven. Four thousand rpm (just below the NHV barrier) corresponded to an effortless and quiet 100 mph cruise, thanks to its aerodynamics. After my Buick Skylark company car, this was a revelation. On our first (of many) family trips to Mammoth in the ‘Bird, I set the cruise control at 95. Shooting across the purple Mohave at sunset and scooting up the Owens Valley under a starry sky was cargasmic. Every car has its sweet spot, and the open road in the desert was it for the TC. Well, that and winding roads.

I had to make regular business trips to San Bernardino. Instead of using I-10, I traversed the whole length of the San Gabriel Mountains via Angeles Crest highway, a classic driving paradise. I wasn’t the only one out on a Wednesday morning: I often crossed tire-marks with other kindred office escapees eager to work out pent-up competitive urges. There were some memorable encounters. And woe to losing revs or boost.

Our fling was short but sweet. Maharishi peddled bliss and tranquility, but working for him induced stress. So I jumped ship, in a long-shot move with a partner to buy a TV station. The ‘Bird stayed behind, to be abused by several TM space-cadets sent to replace me. They managed to destroy it within nine months.

But during the two and a half years I had it, it ran like a top, and never needed anything untoward. For the most part, it really felt well screwed together. Ford’s claim about quality being Job One had some genuine credibility, at least with this one.

I still buy new cars impulsively; some things never change. And since I’ve reverted (sadly) to buying them with my own funds, I keep my cars longer now, eight to fifteen years, or even forever, like my old Ford truck. My impulsiveness seems to manifest mainly in certain areas of life and not others; as my wife of thirty-five years will tell you, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

A great trip back in time with a fascinating and alluring car. I considered diving into this same pool a couple of years later, when I test drove an 85 version. I could certainly see the attraction, and I believe that the dash and steering wheel had been updated by then.

The car absolutely felt great. Ford was indeed on a quality roll about this time, and the car was taut and solid. I really loved the size and the looks. In fact, I loved everything about the package with one exception: that engine.

My problem was less with the harsh upper region and more with the absolutely gutless low end. Until the turbo kicked in at over 2k, it was like driving a Mustang II after a 40% weight-gain. The harsh part was at least offset by some forward motion and could be mostly avoided. That torque-free zone under 2k, however, was part of the experience from every standing start. There was also a lot of slop/backlash in the drivetrain, but maybe this was the particular example I drove.

I had also tested a Mustang GT. I loved the drivetrain, but was not crazy about the rest of the car. I loved everything about the TC except for the drivetrain. But for CAFE, I am sure that Ford would have done it, and I would have been reminiscing about my years in my loved Thunderbird GT. But no.

The interior photo makes my hands hurt again today, as it reminds me of the dreaded Ford autolamp switch that I replaced in my son’s Grand Marquis last weekend. A miserable, miserable job.

It wasn’t that bad at low rpm. Actually, it ran about exactly as you would expect a (non-turbo) fuel injected 2.3 liter four in a 3000 lb car below 2000 rpm. Meaning like a lot of European cars, say a Volvo 244. Which means still better than say the old 2.3 non-turbo in my Dad’s Zephyr.

There was nothing about the turbo system that made it run worse than a non-turbo engine below boost. IN fact, given its advanced FI, it ran better than most non-turbo fours of the time. Look at the torque curve on the graphic in the article; it’s quite normal below boost, and the transition is not that abrupt.

It ran fairly smooth at idle and low speed; again, similar or a bit better than a typical Lima 2.3; and comparable to a Volvo.

I’m not being defensive of this motor, because I really came to dislike the NVH that set in at above 4500 rpm. But then one didn’t need to use that upper range much. Note that the hp peak came exactly at 4500 rpm; not uncommon for a turbo.

Contrary to popular myth, turbo engines tend specifically to not be high rpm engines, with some exceptions of course. So one just had to avoid going past 4500, the NVH was like a rev limiter, as power fell off quickly above that.

As I said, its biggest weakness was under heavy load situations, in heavy LA traffic town, where one really didn’t want much boost, but it really struggled without it.

I guess it is about where a guy came from before driving the TC. I had spent several years in a slant 6 Scamp and a 440 77 New Yorker. A couple of friends had Mustang IIs with the standard 2.3 mated to sticks, and I hated the lack of low end torque on those cars too. Had I spent my time cultivating a more Eurocentric driving experience, the bottom part of the TC’s torque curve would probably not have bothered me at all.

Of course, then what did I do? Bought a VW GTI. In its defense, the VW 1.8 in that car reached peak torque at 3k, a bit lower than in the TC. It was quite a bit lighter, however.

In a turbo engine, the rpm of maximum torque is not comparable to that of an unblown engine, since the torque (un)naturally continues to build due to the forced induction, that’s the essence of a blown engine: an extended torque curve. A better comparison would be how much torque the TC engine made at a lower rpm compared to a comparable unblown engine at the same engine speed. At 3000 rpm, the turbo 2.3’s torque would be vastly higher than an unblown engine. Even at 2500 rpm, I suspect, once the boost was on. It really is comparing apples to oranges.

Wow Paul, this might be your best article yet. You had me engaged the entire way through. Excellent writing all around.

I’m wondering if the development of the Taurus is what held back your Thunderbird Coupe from being great. It cost Ford about 3 billion dollars to develop the bull, and it was all new from the ground up – including the Vulcan V6 – which produced an impressive 145 horsepower in 1986. Could one of those kept up with the T-Bird?

And I’m now wondering why Ford opted to make a Taurus SHO instead of a T-Bird SHO. Why not both? That 220 horsepower would have been served well in the coupe it seems.

The SHO came out in ’89, Ed, same year as the all-new T-Bird “Super Coupe,” with a blown 3.8, also around 220 hp. Two different new engines making over 200 hp, plus the 5.0 HO in the same neighborhood – at the time that was an unheard-of selection of factory hot rods.

Back then, all articles had an exact 800 word limit, and only one picture. I was torn about re-running it as it was, or re-doing it. It was more like a short essay, and didn’t really give much info about the car. So this is a a hybrid version. I’m not sure which approach is better.

Back then (at TTAC in the old days) , I had a lot of time to give each article. I wrote one or two posts per week! And I ignored my other business totally for a year.

Now…don’t ask. I’m a pathetic hack, cranking them out like sausages…I somewhat miss those days, but that was then, and this is now.

Very enjoyable read. I had an 82 T-Bird Landau V-8, a creampuff purchased in 88 from a Ford dealer in Kent, Ohio for $3,000. It was to be used making sales calls across northern Ohio. The car had been lightly used with only 43,000 original miles and was a totally enjoyable ride for a couple of years. I normally covered 25,000 miles a year so only kept it two years. The interior of my 82 was actually quite sumptuous. I was not crazy about the exterior design but for the price I was happy. Only had to be towed one time and that was due to water pump failure. Long term (if 2 years can be long term) my only disappointment was a slight shimmy in the front end at 45 to 55 mph that I could never get eliminated. I noticed it in my test drive and it stayed with me no matter what.

That was just the first of many such trips. Back then, we did a lot of road tripping on weekends and such, and heading out across the desert and up to the Sierra Nevada was a favorite destination. Get out of town (LA)…that was our mantra. And so we did, whenever possible, and eventually, for good.

The Aero-Bird was the SECOND Ford I liked, after the 1968 Torino. The Fairmont was the third.

Very beautiful car. The working vent windows really impressed me, as Ford brought them back as an option for a few years. Yes – those were THAT important to me…

Notice I say nothing about performance…I don’t care – I’m a cruiser, remember? Plus, fuel economy was our main mantra back then. Our Reliant was a stripper all the way – and we loved it. I’m still cheap and nurse my 300hp beast as best as I can…

Beiing a young family man in those days, besides money being very tight, I looked longingly at one, brought home the brochure, and wifey and I drolled over the pictures!

Well, we made do with our Reliant, and when wifey went back to work in 1983, our Dart Lite.

Vent windows are great for keeping the windows clear during rainy Wet Coast winters, too. Just crack each one and the windshield and side windows will stay much clearer. Modern cars require the use of the a/c on cold, rainy nights hereabouts

Bought a black ’83 TC, my very first new car, in the fall of ’82. It was my last semester in college, and this was my “Ensign-mobile”, a total impulse-sure as hell can’t afford it-but gotta have it purchase a few months ahead of being commissioned an Ensign in the Navy.

Graduated, got commissioned, then married all the same month, then my new wife and I drove our new black ‘Bird from the midwest out east to VA Beach for 3 months of temp duty, then down to Pensacola for year of flight school. The TC was a reliable, fun companion the whole time we had it, even though the car payment sucked most of my meager monthly Ensign pay (pretty much what little was left after my housing allowance for living on base was deducted).

Your remembrances and impressions of the TC fit mine perfectly. Thanks for the great little trip down memory lane!

The pic is from right after I bought the car in Sep ’82 ( think I’d just washed it… that’s probably what’s on the driveway under the car). That’s one proud young dude w/ his new wheels!

Entertaining writeup Paul. One thing has me somewhat confused which has been a pretty normal state for the past few months. I owned an 85 town car and also an 86. I had them at the same time so this isn’t confusion. The 85 had a 302 with a throttle body that looked like a carb and the 86 had a 5.0 (yes I know it was a 302 but don’t tell ford) with EFI.

You talk about the carburator on the 83 but the ad talks about EFI and I thought that was about 3 years too early. On the big cars at least, the EFI came about in 86. What am I missing?

BTW I was looking for specs on my cube on line last night and ran across your article on it for TTAC. The article was objective, to the point, and well written. Thank you, two years late.

The comments were the same kerfuffle that I read last week. At least nobody wanted to whack the cube with a shovel. It was amazing and quite humorous to see that some things are unchanged. People over six foot tall that have tried the car and people who own the car like it. People who know the least about it seem to dismiss it as a cartoon. Guess the sizzle is more important to them than the steak.

not really a fair comparison but i recall renting this generation thunderbird from hertz in the late 80s. i got the “ski package” (traction control) version and went to vermont. i started out the trip a foreign car snob and the car just reaffirmed my prejudices. the handling on the snow was horrible with wheel spinout at the slightest provocation. i called hertz from the road and told them that the snow tires were useless on this car and they told me that the car had all weather radials which were rated for use in snow. when i returned the car they tried to charge me for being late because i had to drive white knuckled in the right lane the whole way on their crappy tires. i let them know that if they didn’t drop the late charge, i would discuss with my lawyer whether we should start a class action law suit against hertz for renting ski package cars without snow tires. they dropped the late charge.

Here in the land of perpetual snow, you learn a thing or two about winter driving. First, RWD cars suck in snow. They really such without winter tires and like 100 kg of sand in the trunk. The problem with rental cars has been so bad several provinces in Canuckistan now have November to April winter tire laws, mostly to cover rentals.

I hate to wade into the old debate about which is better in snow but my experience is that a small, FWD car with manual transmission and good winter tires is unstoppable in almost anything. I had Michelin X-Ice 175-65-14 on my Fit and the thing was amazing; once I even went up a hill plowing show all the way up with the air dam and still made it up to rescue a client who’d run low on food. Her 750i couldn’t move a wheel!

Wow that dashboard! Really doesn’t match the rest of the car at all, especially with the stick shift.

I remember a late night run with my friend in his 85 SVO Mustang. He had it up to 130 and it seemed effortless with that turbo 4. Problem is, he was also scaring the hell out of me, as I didn’t trust him to be able to handle any car at that speed..

That was a good read Paul, thanks. I was also fascinated by these TCs and test drove one. My God did that engine shake. I’ll never forget how much vibration there was in the shifter taking it up through the gears.

I remember hoping they would change the dash to something more fitting to the exterior styling, which they did one to two model years later if I remember correctly. I also hated that generation of Ford steering wheel which seemed to be in everything Ford made.

I remember walking into a Ford showroom just to check them out – must have been 83 or so. I was a college freshman and had absolutely no plans to buy a car then. An older sale rep came over and asked when I intended to buy a car. I said probably not for a few years. Well – he walked away and muttered something like – “Come back then and get two.” Never forgot that.

I was lucky enough to have a choice of a new 79 Ford Mustang for a year. Was a custom order. After driving both the Turbo-4 and 5.0L V8 I opted for the V8 and wondered why the magazines overlooked it so much in favor of the Turbo. I know the Turbo story was a more interesting one to tell (by Ford and the journalists) but driving the two back to back it was clear one was underdeveloped and the other a near masterpiece.

There was no GT that year so I ordered as close as I could to what would later become the GT. That meant the TRX tire package. While the tire performance was excellent (for back then) the soft compound caused significant wear up front and the tires needed replacing after about 8,000 miles. Replacements were expensive then and from what I hear obscenely expensive now. How did those TRXs hold up on the T-bird?

The thing that soured me on the Turbo after they improved it was that I read Ford used loose tolerances between the pistons and cylinder walls which lead to significant oil consumption. Sounds like you didn’t keep the car long, but how was the oil consumption?

I have also driven the first Mustang turbo and it was a pretty crude appliance at the time. The engine was just too low tech for a turbo, which doesn’t work terribly well with carbs. I remember all the hullabaloo about the first first Buick turbos and then to be horrified when I actually drove one. Not nearly enough low and for a heavy car like a LeSabre.

I had higher hopes for the first Mustang turbo I drove, a very low miler. The motor had to be the roughest I have ever experienced in any car of my life and it really wasn’t very fast. I did make cute turbo-whistly noises, though. The rest of the car was quite nice for the standards of the time.

I am still not a turbonian, but we will certainly see more of them coming pronto. They make it much easier to beat the EPA test. Any real world benefit would be negligible, since you’d have to stomp it all the time to keep up with traffic.

I would hesitate to buy any used turbo car, too. I know what it costs to replace them.

Very nice write up on a nice car! Ford was sure on a roll in this time period and it all pretty much started with this car and the 82 Mustang GT. From everywhere I read, the Ford EEC-IV engine control system was highly regarded. The Ford TFI ignition modules seemed to have some issues, but all in all, this EFI engine was head and shoulders above the old carburated 79-80 2.3 Turbo. Intercooling in the SVO Mustang and later Thunderbird TC raised the power even more. Not bad for an engine that saw it’s debut with the Ford Pinto!

This was my favorite period for the modern day Ford Motor Company. It was run by car enthusiasts and it showed in the cars they built, with this Turbo Coupe being the first in this modern day comeback. It’s a pity the car guys left the company in the hands of company men who lost this vision amidst the Ford Explorer SUV craze.

This is a car that brings back positive memories. Was a Car & Driver subscriber and I took an instant liking to this car after reading their write-up in the fall of 1982. I very much liked the looks of the TC and it seemed like a very desirable car. Within a few weeks of reading about it, got a chance to get a ride in a brand new TC. A co-worker/friend of my former Air Force buddy and roommate at the time – we were both just out of the A.F. – dropped by to show off and give us a ride in his shiny new, black Turbo Coupe. Let’s just say he didn’t exactly baby that car, and he sure knew how to drive a stick. For just a turbo four, it seemed like a real hot rod (for the cars of the day). That was obviously a fun car and I was greatly impressed. I think I only had a ride in it once, but it sure made an impression on me.

Later on I went on to own and drive a few turbo cars. In December of 1987, I bought a like-new 1986 Shelby Charger that I also thought was amazing and a lot of fun. In the mid-’90’s, I picked up a rare 1991 Dodge Spirit R/T which was a 5-speed, 224-hp 2.2L turbo sleeper sedan. And, which could get well over 30 mpg highway.

I still think the Fox-body Thunderbird is one of the best cars to come out of the 80’s. It design has held up well over the years and they seem to have been screwed together pretty well. I’ve owned my 88 Thunderbird LX for over ten years (last of the Fox-body Thunderbirds with the updated interior that came in 85) and it hasn’t given me any problems, except for a heater core that needed to be replaced. As the years went on they got heavier as more options/sound deadening were added to the cars to make them plusher (mine with every option but a sunroof tips the scales at a little under 3600lbs). It was worth it as there is no comparison between the Thunderbird and a Mustang comfort wise. The Thunderbird is more relaxing to drive. It’s more of a grand touring car vs. a hot rod like the Mustang.

I’ve never driven a Turbo Coupe. Besides my LX (which is a 5.0) I’ve driven a couple of 3.8 V6 cars. The early CFI (83-87) V6 cars are slow but they keep pace with traffic fine. The 88 V6 cars got the later port fuel injected V6 used in the MN-12 cars (89-97) sans the sequential fuel injection. They had batch fire on each bank. The 88 V6 cars felt much faster and more responsive than previous V6 car (20hp more and 20 ft-lbs more toque will do that) and driveability was much improved. The 5.0 was the all around best choice. Even with only 150hp the SEFI (86-88) 5.0 moves the car pretty well thanks to its low end torque. The ultimate answer is what I did to mine: a 320+hp SEFI 5.0 HO with Edelbrock aluminum heads. It makes my old Fox Thunderbird more than keep pace with modern cars ;).

Surprisingly enough, one of these rare ‘birds could have been my first car… black w. black leather interior an all power options… and a completely smashed rear end. It was ridiculously cheap, an equivalent of $700 or about that – but I was faaar too afraid of the obscure American four-banger with a turbo ))

I’ve been coming to CC for the last 2 (or 3?) days meaning to comment specifically on THIS and keep getting sidetracked by newer articles… which I kinda blew my wad on, so here goes:

This is a fine automobile. I personally think it’s one of the best Fords ever built and a car that personifies some kind of weird fusion between a 1970’s personal luxury coupe and an E30 BMW M3 – really the only one of it’s kind.

These early ones are good, but the updates they did in ’87 took it to a whole other level. The beak and another 55 horsepower were the most visible differences, but it also got a revised suspension with electronically adjustable shocks, anti-lock brakes and liquid filled engine mounts which took plenty of NVH out of the old 2.3l. In fact, the two TC’s I owned were really two of the smoothest, quietest 4cyls I ever drove – huge difference from most other 2.3l’s I’ve experienced. The suspension and brakes do not tend to live that long, but when they work they work incredibly well for something that was designed in the mid-80’s. You can set the suspension on firm or soft manually from the dashboard, or it will automatically kick in once you hit a certain level of boost or speed. When it breaks, it just defaults to firm which is still plenty comfortable. On my second T-Bird it still worked and it was really cool to punch it in the middle of a tight corner and feel the whole car stiffen up beneath you.

As far as the handling in general, like Paul says in the article you really can’t say enough for the way a well balanced car feels. This is also a car that looks way bigger than it actually is, and it’s really just a long Mustang with much better weight distribution. The early dash actually looks kinda cool in these pictures, but the revised one that came out in ’85 or ’86 was IMO part of the best interior offered in an American car during the entire decade. When I had mine, roughly 2000-2003 I thought it still looked better and felt higher quality than the brand new Fords of that time.

I never really had any problems with either of them. A lot of times I think I’d like to own another one, although in my mind I kinda think of them as cars for teenagers and think I’d look foolish driving it. They were stylish at the time – and stylish for me as a teenager, when I owned them as cheap, old cars – but in the 2013 automotive landscape they stick out like a sore thumb.

Last thing – the 2.3l lacking torque is just silly. IMO this is exactly the way a car should work. When you don’t need lots of power bopping between traffic lights, there isn’t much. When you do want it you put your foot down and there is PLENTY. I always liked Hondas for the same reason, although it isn’t really that it lacks low rpm torque – it just lacks useless off-idle torque that would never get put to good use in anything like this. If you ever have the desire to chirp the tires all you have to do is go up another 1,000 rpms or so…

I bought one of the first tubo Coupes in Fort Wayne In. The son of the local Ford dealer ordered it for himself as his dealer car. I saw it on the lot and asked a saleman to drive it not knowing it was not suposed to be sold. It had less then 17mls. on it. I drove it off the lot before he knew it was gone. They had vacume waist gates on them at first and you could put a vacume T in line and pop the cork any time you wanted. I put some SVO aftermarket parts on it and it ran like a raped ape. It was buy far the best fun car I ever owned. I still keep a picture of it on my workbench to remind me of thought days. I did run it in the 1/8ml. once and it ran a best of 6.83 and it was at night.

Like you, my dad was driving past the Ford dealer and saw this baby on the truck as they unloaded it from the factory. It was pure sex. This one was a special edition in that it was gloss black, with a red pin stripe. It had red Italian leather seats and a red leather dash. Black leather wrapped the Hurst shifter in the 5-speed transmission. The seats had inflatable lumbar supports to cradle your back as the turbo snapped your spine back, rescued by the leather head rests. It had Marchal fog lamps, covered in black rubber protective covers. I was 18 and trustworthy enough to get the keys on occasion. Oh I loved driving that thing. A true turbo over a V6 if I’m remembering correctly. I could catch rubber in 3 gears. I loved that car. It may have been dealer sales exaggerations, but he claimed it was the fastest American production car in 1983, exceeding the Corvette of that model year. It was a sleeper at the stop lights and absolutely jumped off the line. It was a little too much for my mom, who managed to spin it a few times as she drove it in the snow. Torque, baby! I’d love to have that car today.

Oh dang, another trip down memory lane. I bought a ’83 T-Bird Heritage with a 5.0. Parked my Chevette diesel demo, went downtown to our Ford store and picked out a Red Metallic Heritage with Red Leather sitting on their showroom floor. Didn’t have the TRX wheels or a sunroof, but other than that pretty much everything you could get. I LOVED that car. It’s hard to appreciate, today, what a major breakthrough that car was. I remember the GM of the Chevy store remarking “who’s gonna want to buy something that looks like that?” Answer, just about everyone- the T-Bird was a solid seller, and paved the way for the Taurus.